62 application,251 which provides the factual framework for the proceedings.252 It is in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence that the alleged victims or their representatives exercise fully that right of locus standi in judicio.253 233. In the instant case, the arguments of the representatives in relation to the supposed violation of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention were submitted to the Court in their pleadings and motions brief and were based on facts included in the Commission’s application. Therefore, the Tribunal will examine them. 234. The Court has established that, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and ensure the human rights established therein. The international responsibility of the State is based on the acts or omissions of any branch or entity of the State, irrespective of its hierarchy, that violate the American Convention.254 235. Regarding the obligation to respect, the Court has stated that the first obligation assumed by the States Parties, in the terms of said Article, is that of “respecting the rights and freedoms” recognized in the Convention. Thus, the notion of limitations to the exercise of the power of the State is necessarily included in the protection of human rights.255 236. With regard to the obligation to guarantee, the Court has established that it may be fulfilled in different ways, based on the specific right that the State must guarantee and on the specific needs for protection.256 This obligation refers to the duty of the States to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public authority is exercised, so that they are able to ensure by law the free and full exercise of human rights.257 As part of this obligation, the State has the legal obligation “to prevent human rights violations and to and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishments on them, and to ensure adequate the victim adequate compensation.”258 The most important factor is to determine “whether a violation […] has occurred with the support 251 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 127, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 191. 252 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 63, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 59. 253 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 252, para. 56; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 33, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 47, para. 135. 254 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, paras. 72 and 73. 255 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21. 256 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 252, paras. 111 and 113; Case of Perozo v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 298, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62. 257 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 137, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62 258 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 174, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62